RE: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.

From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@ebt.com>

To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org

Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 10:09:55 -0400

> It is good to have a nice powerful, branded language that can support test
> suites and be reasoned about enough to allow efficient storage
> and querying. But does that require a monolith?
Absolutely not. This is a very real and present danger though.
Tightly coupling specifications with the intent of creating
a completely closed system can also lead to a set of
self-supporting logic that defies reality (i.e. makes them
unusable individually, and practically unusable in toto).
I personally think that XSchema, despite it's warts, is resonably
extensible, a reasonable type definition system for those that
need it. My contention is that not that many people really *do*
need it, just as only a small minority really need validation as
part of normal processing.